alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Prepared and filed by St Ives Burrups





 Exhibit
  10.2 

 Savient
  Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

  One
  Tower Center

  East
  Brunswick, New Jersey 08816 

 
  June 6, 2004  

 Mr. Alan Rubinfeld

  68 Redner Road

  Morristown, NJ 07960  

 Dear Alan:
   

 This letter
  will extend the expiration of the December 24, 2003 Employment Letter from April
  30, 2004 to December 31, 2004.  

 It is our
  mutual understanding that during the term of the Employment Letter you will
  continue to service as Acting Chief Financial Office (“CFO”) until
  such time as a replacement CFO commences employment with Savient Pharmaceuticals,
  Inc. At such time, you will transfer to the position of Chief Sarbanes Implementation
  Officer (“CSIO”) to lead the Company’s implementation of Section
  404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In the position of CSIO you will report to the
  Company’s Chief Executive Officer. The Termination section of the Employment
  Letter is hereby modified to reflect the Company’s contractual commitment
  to extend your employment through December 31, 2004 and if the Company terminates
  your employment prior to that date, unless for cause, your compensation will
  be paid through December 31, 2004. All other terms and conditions of the Employment
  Letter will remain in effect.  

 Please acknowledge
  and indicate your agreement to this letter by signing below.  

	Savient
    Pharmaceuticals, Inc.	 	Employee
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Christopher Clement	 	/s/
        Alan Rubinfeld        

    
	 	
	 	

	 	Christopher
      Clement

      President & COO	 	Alan
      Rubinfeld
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. ss 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark Bruk, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Xten Networks Inc.

2.	Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to date a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.	The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)	disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's control over financial reporting; and.

5.	The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal controls and procedures for financial reporting.

Date: July 29, 2004

/s/ Mark Bruk						
Signature:  Mark Bruk
Title:	  CEO, Secretary, Treasurer and Director 
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - (-)science_science(9)
              - products_maps(2)
              - products_publications(55)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(2)
              - multimedia_video(9)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(6)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149250(2)

## By Location

              - alabama(8)
              - alaska(8)
              - arizona(8)
              - arkansas(9)
              - california(38)
              - colorado(29)
              - connecticut(7)
              - delaware(4)
              - district of columbia(3)
              - florida(16)
              - georgia(16)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - idaho(4)
              - illinois(10)
              - indiana(18)
              - iowa(11)
              - kansas(5)
              - louisiana(13)
              - maine(7)
              - maryland(10)
              - massachusetts(10)
              - michigan(7)
              - minnesota(7)
              - (-)mississippi(9)
              - missouri(8)
              - montana(19)
              - nebraska(5)
              - nevada(8)
              - new hampshire(4)
              - new jersey(19)
              - new mexico(17)
              - new york(38)
              - north carolina(16)
              - north dakota(11)
              - ohio(10)
              - oklahoma(12)
              - oregon(6)
              - pennsylvania(9)
              - puerto rico(14)
              - rhode island(5)
              - south carolina(19)
              - south dakota(21)
              - tennessee(8)
              - texas(3)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(5)
              - vermont(5)
              - virginia(18)
              - washington(30)
              - west virginia(4)
              - wisconsin(18)
              - wyoming(9)

## By Year

Event        February 25, 2019        Spring/Summer 2011 Mississippi River Basin Floods

Event        February 25, 2019        2016 Southern Spring Floods

Project        June 23, 2017        Hattiesburg Flood Inundation

Program        June 23, 2017        Mississippi FloodWatch

Project        June 23, 2017        Bridge Site Studies - Mississippi

Activity        August 29, 2017        Hydrologist visits 4th-graders at  Baton Rouge public school

Program        June 23, 2017        Mississippi DroughtWatch

Project        June 23, 2017        Gulf of Mexico Coastal Monitoring Sites

Project        October 29, 2018        Sea-level and Storm Impacts on Estuarine Environments and Shorelines (SSIEES)
Tuquincey THOMPKINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-398

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 18, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jonathan Greenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Franklin v. State*, No. SC14-1442 (Fla. Nov. 8, 2018) (reh'g denied Dec. 4, 2018).
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALL BY GRACE HOME HEALTH CARE, 

INC.,

Appellant,

v.

TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES COMMISSION,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00223-CV

Appeal from the

353rd Judicial District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC# D-1-GN-20-004307)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellants and their sureties, if any, see TEX. R. APP. P. 43.5, for performance of the 

judgment and all costs, both in this Court and the court below, for which let execution issue. This 

decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134849 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 134849 

 COA: 278159 
 Wayne CC: 03-000809-01 

DION PATRICK DAWSON a/k/a 

DEON PATRICK DAWSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 27, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 99-60328 Summary Calendar

____________________

ROBERT E. LEWIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLIE WEST, Owner, Mid-Delta Bonding Company; TIMOTHY TOWNSEND, Police Officer, Cleveland, MS; GILL DENLEY, Police Officer, Cleveland, MS, also known as John Doe Gill; CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT; H. M. “MACK” GRIMMETT, Sheriff, Bolivar County, MS; CHARLES ANDERSON; BILLY JOE ESTES; LAWRENCE MELLEN; ROSIE S. SIMMONS, Circuit Clerk, Bolivar County, MS;
KIRK FORDICE; RICHARD COLEMAN; MID-DELTA BONDING COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(2:97-CV-16-B)

_________________________________________________________________

January 18, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert E. Lewi s, Mississippi prisoner # 79267, appeals, p ro

se, the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint (claimed

extradite d improperly from Tennessee, beaten, and denied medical

tre atment), pursuant to the defendants’ F E D

. R. C IV

. P. 50 motion

for judgment as a matter of law, made at the non-jury evidentiary

hearing before the magistrate judge. The district court adopted

the magistrate judge’s recommendation in this regard.- 2 -

Lewis, who did not request a jury trial, contends that the

magistrate judge did not have such hearing-authority, because he

did not so consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). However, as the

dis trict court noted, the magistrate judge had such authority,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), in conjunction with

submitting a report and recommendation. See McCarthy v. Bronson

,

500 U.S. 136, 139 (1991) (noting that statute’s text indicates

“Congress intended to authorize the nonconsensual reference of all

prisoner petitions to a magistrate [judge]”) (emphasis in

original).

Lewis also asserts that the court erre d by finding that

defendants West, Townsend, and Denley were not acting under color

of state law when they apprehended him, following his failure to

appear pursuant to the terms of his bail bond. But, Lewis did not

provide on appeal a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, as is

his burden. See United States v. Coveney , 995 F.2d 578, 587 (5th

Cir. 1993); see also F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 10(b); F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 11(a).

Because Lewis failed to do so, we cannot properly review his claim.

See United States v. Hinojosa , 958 F.2d 624, 632 (5th Cir. 1992).

The other “issues” raised by Lewis in his appellate brief

address the merits of his claim, which the district court did not

reach, pursuant to the adopted report and recommendations.

AFFIRMED
Jeffery T. CRYSTAL, Appellant, v. REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3781

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 3, 2019

Jeffrey T. Crystal, pro se, Appellant.

Dennis Dean Leone, Mitchell C. Robiner, and Jonathan K. Stitt of Shankman Leone, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Rowe, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-20-00326-CV 

 

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MIKE MORATH, THE TEXAS 

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, APPELLANTS 

V. 

ERIK TOSTEN, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 419th District Court 

 Travis County, Texas 

Trial Court No. D-1-GN-19-004374, Honorable Catherine A. Mauzy, Presiding 

 

No. 07-20-00327-CV 

 

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND MIKE MORATH, TEXAS 

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANTS 

V. 

VERONICA ARISPE, LENNITTA GILBERT, MARY KENNEDY, ROSA M. RIVERA, LISA 

THEISS, AND RU-MIN WANG, APPELLEES 

On Appeal from the 200th District Court 

 Travis County, Texas 

Trial Court No. D-1-GN-19-004370, Honorable Catherine A. Mauzy, Presiding 

March 31, 2021 

ORDER GRANTING STAY 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 
2

Pending before this Court is Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Reconsideration of 

the Motion to Stay Appeals, which requests that we abate and stay these appeals pending 

the Texas Supreme Court’s review of Davis v. Morath, a related case. Upon further 

consideration and in the interest of conservation of judicial resources, we grant the motion 

and abate the appeals until August 2, 2021. All appellate deadlines, including the pending 

deadline for appellants’ briefs, are suspended. The cases will be removed from our active 

docket and treated as suspended cases until August 2, 2021, when the cases will be 

reinstated. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 43.6; Mesa Water, L.P. v. Tex. Water Dev. Bd., No. 

07-11-00153-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5311, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 13, 

2011, order) (per curiam). 

If any development arises that might cause the Court to reinstate the cases prior 

to the August 2, 2021 reinstatement date, the parties are directed to immediately advise 

the Court of the development. Upon reinstatement of the cases, the Court will entertain 

a motion to further abate the appeals should the need be present to do so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Per Curiam
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 31, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 31, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0210. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. ADRIENNE DANIELLE SMITH, et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 14A059222
William LITZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2913

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed January 18, 2019

William Litz, Polk City, pro se.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

William Litz appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Litz raised four grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his motion. However, he claims only ground three constitutes error in his pro se brief. Therefore, he has abandoned the other grounds alleged in his motion. *See**Ward v. State*, 19 So.3d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

In ground three, Litz alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the warrantless tracking of a cell phone that was used in the crimes. The trial court denied this ground, concluding that Litz lacked standing to challenge the cell phone tracking because the cell phone did not belong to him.

The records attached to the order denying Litz's motion do not conclusively demonstrate that Litz lacked standing. *See, e.g.*, *United States v. Stringer*, 739 F.3d 391, 396 (8th Cir. 2014) ("Stringer makes no argument that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of G.R.'s cell phone, so he may not challenge the seizure of evidence from that device."). It is unclear from the record attachments whether Litz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the tracked cell phone, thereby giving him standing to seek its suppression. Hence, we reverse and remand for attachments of portions of the record that conclusively refute ground three or an evidentiary hearing.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, BERGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
G.S., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1367

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 12, 2018

G.S., a juvenile, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
K.C., the mother, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2345

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 28, 2018]

Anthony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Paul O'Neil, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Sarah Elizabeth Goldfarb of Statewide Florida Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian Ad Litem Program.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, Assistant Attorney General, Children's Legal Services, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Florida Department of Children and Families.

Per Curiam.

We affirm the final judgment terminating appellant's parental rights to her child, as competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings. *See**881*B.K. v. Dep't of Children & Families* , 166 So.3d 866, 872-73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (noting that the review of a trial court's findings in a termination proceeding is highly deferential, and a trial court's findings carry a presumption of correctness and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support). We remand, however, to correct the final judgment by removing the court's conclusion of law that clear and convincing evidence supported termination based upon section 39.806(1)(g), Florida Statutes. The parties all agree that the Department of Children and Families dismissed this ground as a basis for termination, which the trial court noted at the final hearing but nevertheless included it in its final judgment. It would be a violation of appellant's due process rights of notice and a fair hearing to terminate her parental rights based on a ground which was not noticed or tried by implied consent. *See**R.S. v. Dep't of Children and Families* , 872 So.2d 412, 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). However, the trial court also found that clear and convincing evidence supported termination pursuant to sections 39.806(1)(c) and 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Where the trial court's ruling on any ground for termination is supported by competent substantial evidence, the trial court's decision should be upheld. *See**J.E. v. Dep't of Children & Families* , 126 So.3d 424, 427-28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

*Affirmed and remanded with directions.*

Warner, Damoorgian and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1



Board of Directors
Trend Mining Company
(Formerly Silver Trend Mining Company)
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho





                     CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




We consent to the use of our review report dated February 16, 2001, on the
financial statements of Trend Mining Company (formerly Silver Trend Mining
Company) (an exploration stage company) as of December 31, 2000, for the filing
with and attachment to the Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2000.



/s/ Williams & Webster, P.S.


Williams & Webster, P.S.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
Spokane, Washington



February 19, 2001
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of AlphaRx, Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, Michael Lee, as chief executive
officer of AlphaRx, Inc., does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of his knowledge:

|1. | This 10-Q report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and                                                                 
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                       
|2. | The information contained in this 10-Q report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
      operations of AlphaRx, Inc.

/s/ Michael LeeMichael Lee Chief Executive
Officer February 13, 2009

---
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

-----------------------------------------------------

      In connection  with the filing by Trend Mining Company (the  "Company") of
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 (the
"Report"),  each of the  undersigned  hereby  certifies  pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.



                                          /s/ Thomas Loucks
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Thomas Loucks
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer



                                          /s/ John P. Ryan
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          John P. Ryan
                                          Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer